and thriving within an immersion program within the san francisco unified school district. it was lawrence and sarah that created that foundation for wanting to learn. i recognize there are concerns from the neighbors in potrero on harvard street. we have heard directly from the concerns through the community meeting around traffic, noise and parking. i think from the testimony you have already heard tonight sarah and lawrence take this very seriously. they are planners and as you saw from your planning packet, they have a plan to mitigate and be able to be a good neighbor in the potrero neighborhood. issues raised by michelle and cat, an additional consideration for the commission is what is state of children and families in san francisco? with only 13% of children in san francisco -- it's one of the smallest populations across the country. what kind of message are we sending for children and families who want to stay in san francisco and raise -- to be able to stay for generations? i am really proud of the san franciscans investing in public housing, which has passed around our par

and changing the character of the neighborhood even more. we really wanted to stay in san francisco. but we had few choices, because of how expensive the city is. we didn't want the noise. the traffic, the parking problems, that come with so many san francisco neighborhoods. so we looked around and we were thrilled when we found the university mound neighborhood. and we're particularly happy when we found this very quiet block on harvard street with no commercial activity of any sort nearby. and very life traffic. the code mandate that the commission preserve our neighborhoods in san francisco. so that we have the diversity and can offer our citizens affordable, quiet residential streets too, so that they can stay in san francisco, the city that we all love. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is stewart gaffney and i live a few houses from the site where the applicants seek to relocate their business. i want to address several points about the application. they want to relocate their business and please note that the proposal did not provide a necessary service to ou

's council of san francisco, a very respected third party referral organization, whose database included 70% of san francisco's child-care facilities and they informed us that their 95 facilities with at least one actual opening for children 2-5 years old within our zip codes and many openings include family child-care centers just like the applicant's preschool. i would urge the commission of what they offer. many providing bilingual services as working capital. we appreciate the applicant's offer to give them their cell phone numbers for blocking sidewalks and driveways and double parking, but blocking sidewalks and driveways and double parking is unlawful. such an offer doesn't fully address neighborhood concerns regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit that is permanent for any future owner. for example, in addition, the findings say there are no exterior modifications to the building, but, in fact, the applicants propose to move the front door of an historic 1905 pre-earthquake home. it's worth noting that the proponents who speak in favor are from outside of this neighborh

is christine -- i am an attorney in san francisco and i am spoking on behalf of mr. and mrs. flavia, who are at 1870 pacific avenue unit 505, which is the property directly being affected by the project and also speaking on behalf of mr. bernard, who is at 1830 jackson street, who is not here tonight, and has not had an opportunity to send a letter and both partis are objecting to this project. i have some procedural objections to this. my office received the conditional use application this past monday, even though we had asked for it and therefore we had not had enough time to make a presentation in detail about what are the different reasons we object to it? i have been asked specifically to also voice his objections in that he apparently did not receive this notice of this application until just recently and was not able to attend tonight. now i am also informed that the sponsor and/or his architect never had a pre-approval meeting with the pacific heights association to get their input on this project. our main concern is that this project is in violation of the neighborhood aspect

Excerpts 0 to 5 of about 6 results.